Wednesday, April 7, 2010

New HD Poll: 3-pt Conservative Lead

Harris-Decima has a new poll out, showing a closer race between the Conservatives and the Liberals than a month ago.The Conservatives have dropped one point to 32%, while the Liberals have remained steady at 29%. The New Democrats are up one point to 17%, while the Greens are steady and the Bloc Québécois has dropped one point at the national level.

Despite their weakness nationally, the Liberals are doing very well in the most important province: Ontario. They've dropped only one point to 38%, but the Conservatives are down three to 32%. That is a troublesome number for the Tories. A gain of three points for the NDP, now at 17%, is good news for them.

In Quebec, the Bloc drops five points but is still very strong at 39%. The Liberals are up one point but are only at 23%, well below where they need to be. The Conservatives and NDP have each gained one point to 16% and 11%, respectively.

In British Columbia, the Tories are down two to 33%, putting the NDP within range at 29%, up four points. The Liberals are up one to 22%.

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have gained five points and lead with 39%. In Alberta, the Conservatives lead with 53% while the NDP has dropped five points to 9%. In the Prairies, the Tories are solidly ahead with 49%. The Liberals have dropped five points here.

The Conservatives win 69 seats out West, 33 in Ontario, 6 in Quebec, and 8 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 116. Their weak Ontario numbers sink them.

The Liberals win 11 seats in the West, 57 in Ontario, 15 in Quebec, and 20 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 103.

The NDP wins 15 seats in the West, 16 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 4 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 37.

The Liberal and NDP numbers are significant, because together they hold 140 seats, much more than the Tories at 116. It is difficult to imagine the Conservatives governing with only 116 seats, and with the NDP outnumbering the Liberals in the West, the NDP would have a good argument for having an important role in an Ignatieff government.

I don't mean a crossroads where the Liberals fall into third place. That isn't happening. But its becoming increasingly clear that unless something happens where either all three opposition parties collapse (whether its Lib, NDP or Bloc, or Con, NDP or Bloc), no party will get a majority government unless they actually work in tandem.

I hate to say it, but a coalition is an option thats becoming increasingly pretty to look at. Damnit.

It's called responding to the facts on the ground. There's only so much you can do when you have five fairly strong parties vying for seats, two parties vying for power, but one of them presents a united front against the other.

If I had my way, I'd never enter into a coalition. Accord, maybe, but probably not. However, I don't get my way. I, and the Liberals, and the NDP, need to look at the situation and ask ourselves what is the best way to solve it. The idea of a coalition is mighty promising. Because really, we can't control the voters, we can only adapt to them.

And the polarization thing doesn't work here. What you're talking about is ideological polarization, which is different from party polarization. When the parties polarize, they tend to become more moderate. Look at the Manitoba NDP. They're not called "Red Dippers" for nothing.

The thing party polarization does is that it disenfranchises the more extremist voters, not the centrist voters. Extremist parties are bred out of polarized systems, not the other way around. This is why you'll be hard pressed to find a centrist party in a polarized electorate making gains except in circumstances of party apathy and/or protest votes.

That is, I should say polarized electorates which are mature. Places like the US, UK, France, etc., where the electorate is polarized but the two competing parties are essentially clustered around the middle.

Besides, the UK is a very different situation. They may end up in a hung parliament, but only because of the weakness of the Conservatives and their inability to get a huge swing from Labour. In the UK, there is only three parties which really take up any major share of the vote.

That's a different situation from here, where we have five parties that take up big shares. Actually, the more apt comparison would be with the electorate in New Zealand. Even though their system is different, the parties all take up fairly big shares, while only two parties are actually able to form the government. They're forced to enter into coalitions or deal all the time. Neither party actually has a chance of winning a majority.

Earl said...Hey DL while I commend the responsible action Dexter took on the NS deficit I do note that he broke his promise on tax increases. Now that we have Campbell in BC, a putative Liberal, McGuinty in ON, a real Liberal and Dexter in NS all breaking campaign promises on taxes maybe we can stop trying to attack the Harper Conservatives for the EI hike which is mandated by law. Every party breaks promises out of necessity. Not to do so would reflect a closed mind and not a flexible one.

Here's what I see happening. Next election we end up just about where we are now barring some interesting developments for either side.

Harper will correctly campaign against a coalition of the LPC and the NDP with Bloc support. The people of Canada will have a clear choice. Iggy can deny it. Jack or his successor won't. So we will have a choice. It may be that Harper is repudiated. It may be that Harper gets his elusive majority. The issue of a coalition will hang over the campaign unless another dominating issue emerges. Right now I don't see one. As Nanos said the Liberals have to hope for a major scandal. So if we end up going to polls with conditions about the same as they are now do we end up with a coalition? I think not. Other views will no doubt vary.

so if every party "breaks promises out of necessity" what difference does it make what Harper or Ignatieff or Layton or Duceppe say about what they will or won't do after the next election if no one has a majority?? In the end i think we all have to vote for the party and leader we like best and trust them to make the right decisions post election. I will vote NDP because I am confident they will not prop up Harper indefinitely in exchange for nothing.

If Harper actually spends the entire campaign say its "me or a coalition of Liberals, Socialists and Separatists" then how do we interpret the results of the election if a majority of seats goes to "liberals, socialists and separatists"?? To ask the question is to answer it. Either Harper gets a majority or he is toast. Period.

Depending on which way the wind blows for the election, I think it'll be a battle over two things; accountability and vision, unless the economy messes up again before then.

I won't make predictions on the outcome, but if there does appear to be something whereby the Liberals and NDP have to work together, Iggy and Layton will work to cut off Harper's line and specifically exclude Bloc support. Its the only way it will be palatable to the public. I don't think Canadians are really against the idea of a coalition government, they're just against the idea of the Bloc in a coalition government.

I've never really realized how much hatred is reserved for the Bloc in the minds of English voters before. During canvassing, a lady walked up to our candidate and said, "if I vote for you, I want you to work on taking away federal funding for the Bloc." Flat out said it. Never seen that before.

So, Harper can wail about the Bloc, but the Liberals and NDP say, we'll do this without the Bloc included, I think it will go over a lot better.

However, thats only if the wind blows that way. If the Liberals think they can win without the NDP, it's bye-bye Dippers.

DL my only point was that it is not fair to be solely critical of Harper when every party, unfortunately breaks promises. Some make such promises solely for political gain knowing they will break them. I believe Harper did this with income trusts. Chretien did it with the free FTA and GST. That kind of behavior only creates cynicism in voters. Trudeau may have done the same thing with Price and Wage controls and Clark with mortgage interest deduction. That kind of behavior seems to infect every party. I wonder how Dexter could not know that tax increases would be necessary to deal with deficit but I will give him the benefit of the doubt because I don't know enough about the background.

Everyone should do as you do and vote for the party and leader that they see best serving the nation's interests.

The reality is that when politicians break promises - they usually get away with it. Chretien promised to ditch the GST, broke his promise and still won two subsequent elections. The Liberals also won numerous elections despite having broken promises to bring in child care and won anyways. McGuinty promised no new taxes, brought in tax increases in 2004 and won re-election in 2007.

Shadow: I think we've entered a period where no party will want to risk an election.

But depending on what happens with the speaker we may be forced into one anyways.

We are on course for a fall election but we won't see one before then. The opposition parties are emphatically not trying to defeat the government at this time. Bluster notwithstanding, Stephen Harper won't make the contempt motions votes of confidence. He is determined to play the pleasant host to his friends at Pen Lake in late June. We're election-proof for the next few months.

To forestall an objection, yes, Gordon Brown hit the hustings. He's in a different position on several counts. The G8 and G20 matter much less to him and the UK election will be long past by those meetings. He also stands a chance of forming the government at that point. If Harper goes to the polls, he's out unless he comes back with a majority or something very close to it.

Éric has a reasonable model of seat assignments in bulk, but predicting individual riding winners is a different matter. It's similar to predicting outcomes of rolling many dice versus a small number.

That's the Green situation at this point. Because Green support is so evenly distributed across the country and between ridings, very few are in play. Three Green seats in the next Parliament would be very good with the current numbers. Status quo is entirely possible.

When BC or Ontario hit steady Green levels of 20%, multiple Green MPs are a given. At this point, however, the error bars are large and Éric's analysis is at the wrong level to predict Green fortunes.

Peter - Not really a compelling argument, given how that program has allowed the federal government to strong-arm the provinces.

Why not let each province operate its own system as they see fit? The feds have mostly stopped funding them anyway. Why does it need to be a national system with a national bureaucracy when different regions have different preferences?

I have no doubt about that, but some left-leaning Liberals might come out and support the coalition even more. And hello, the Liberals are the major partner in such an alliance - they've already been in government. Just like when the Conservatives moderated after their merger with the Tories, the same is likely to happen with any Liberal-NDP merger.

But that is besides the point. Those who refuse to respond to the facts on the ground are doomed to a very squalid existence. You could say all the things you've said to me about the Liberals and NDP working together about the Alliance-PC merger. You're blowing it out of proportion, maybe for good reason, but still.

I think the real difference between a coalition or a straight minority is ground rules. In the former circumstance, measures are agreed to ahead of time, and support is supposed to come from the same group every time.

A Harper style minority would be more risky and flexible. It's survival would depend not on policy agreement so much as relative popularity. I don't think it's as desirable even being a Liberal. (Ok, a lefty-Liberal, but still)

Of the two of us, which one is making broad assertions of value based on buzzwords alone?

I suggest that is greater evidence of brainwashing than me asking questions ever could be.

What does equality give you? What do any of us get from equality? Is being equally poor better than being differently wealthy?

I'm suggesting that the different regions of the country, since they clearly have different preferences with regard to governance (note the clear regional differences in polling and election results) would be better served by having different government services and different levels of taxation, chosen by them, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all national program which, at best, is a compromise that makes no one happy (and at worst, is the system preferred by some regions, but not others - a simple tyranny of the majority).

Bringing the government closer to the people provides the people with government more like what they want.

Hey, you know what? You don't have to defend everyone who is even remotely on "your side". And, you can admit when you or people you support have made mistakes.

It's nice that my site has groupies, but a lot of you are beyond predictable. In fact, I could moderate these comments completely, write them all under your names, and no one would notice the difference.

Tom Clark ridiculed the Liberal research team for not simply calling Scotiabank.

Turns out anyone can get the deal she got. Its a seperate line of credit they've just rolled into her mortage to cut down on the papework and legal filing fees. Everything is still asset backed at appropriate levels.

Lol.

Poor Wayne Easter. Glover was her usual poised self.

She even asked to opt out of her gov't pension. Easter was busy defending his.

Volkov I would like nothing better than to see the GOP sell its soul the tea partiers. Let them embrace the fringe they have courted and encouraged for so long. Let Americans see their true colours. Then maybe the party can be taken back from the lunitic fringe and once again form a legitimate counterbalance to the Democrats

Shadow I hate to disappoint you but the only people who watch Power Play, particlarly when there is no election campaign, those off us who are political junkies. What happens on there is of little consequence, although I'm pleased Wayne easter was put in his place over Helena affair. Give the women a break.

And to point out, I don't think Glover needs a pension - she has a job already, one she can go back to easily if she isn't re-elected. Wayne Easter, on the other hand, is, well, old. He won't be doing much else after he retires ('cause he ain't losing an election, thats for sure).

49 steps Glover TRIED to opt out but the adminstrator told her she was legally obligated to accept the pension.

Apparently they don't want parliament to be divided into people who take pensions and those who don't.

My guess is all those reformers you're talking about give away a large chunk of their income to charity anyways.

All that money they're legally forced to accept probably just goes there.

I'd like to see the system reformed to make the pension plan more modest, have it built around matching contributions, and don't have legally mandated growth - let them determine an appropriate level of risk and go into the markets like everyone else.

I remember reading that a large proportion, if not a majority, of those MPs who become eligible for the pension this year are Conservatives.

So, in the same spirit of the questions asked last year about Bloc MPs and their pensions, I assume the Conservatives try all they can to avoid an election so that their MPs get their pension? Wait until 2011, then?

• Reported incidents of ‘combatants taking food away’ are down from 49% to 27%;• Fewer people have had their homes looted: down from 51% to 33%;• Reported conflict-related deaths in respondents’ families are down from 53% to 35%;• Those having to leave their home is down from 83% to 60%;• Those who report having been tortured are down from 43% to 29%.

Do either of you remember when Duff Roblin was Premier? I was disappointed when Stanfield beat Roblin for PC leader. Thought the fluently bilingual Roblin would have been a much better choice. Just wondered if you had any perspective on what kind of Premier he was and what kind of PM he might have been.

49 just read the Star article. I think the people in Edmonton made a wise choice in getting rid of Jaffer. However many politicians from both governing parties have made similar claims after they were out of office.

My guess is that Jaffer made a plea deal. This doesn't bode well for Helena though. The CPC would do well to replace her as the candidate in her riding.

I don't see how Helena of Troy can be allowed to spend one more nano-second as a cabinet minister. Her husband has been exposed as trying to engage in influence peddling - not mention associating with underworld figures and procuring illegal drugs and prostitutes. Those of us who are in the know realize that this is all standard operating procedure in the Conservative party - but now that its splashed all over the front pages - she has got to go. You cannot have someone being given access to cabinet secrets etc... who is sharing a bed with someone who is selling access to government contracts and associating with organized criminals.

Were I a Liberal supporter I would want a full apology for asking the ethics commisioner to investigate the details of Helena Guergis mortgage. Right now the Liberals are looking petty and mean.

The Bank indicated that the amount of the loan can be for the full or even in excess of the value of the property but only 80% of the value of the property can be drawn upon. The excess value of the loan amount is treated like a line of credit with a better (mortage rate) interest rate. These are fairly common when your net worth exceeds the amount of the mortage requirement. The bank is chasing your business.

Now that the Liberals have opened this up I think it is only fair that we see the details of how the Liberals (Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, McCallum, Wayne Easter) finance their real estate holdings?

How much did they pay? was it fair market value? How much do they owe? What bank do they deal with? How much is outstanding on their personal credit cards?

It is really none of our business....

I expect that if we take a look at personal finances of the other 307 MPs there would be more than one or two things that would make us say - OH?

When a politician's spouse is engaged in criminal activity - there are no "unwritten rules". Its all fair game.

Its funny to see the Keystone Cops messaging from the PMO. They tried to make a big ostentatious display of expressing outrage about Graham James the sex predator having been pardon by the Tory appointed National Parole Board three years ago! But where was the outrage when an ex-Tory MP, married to a Tory cabinet minister gets caught red-handed with hard drugs and gets let go?

This is a government that is making a big fuss about their "anti-drug strategy" and their "tough on crime agenda" - and now both of these initiatives are smouldering ruin thanks to all this hypocrisy and exposes about Tories being drug addicts and associating with organized criminals and hookers.

DL the trouble is you have no evidence that Jafer was engaged in any criminal activity. Yes he spent a day with some people who were later arrested. Maybe he plea bargained his way out of the cocaine and lesser charges by telling the police information they needed to know about these crooks.

The article in the Star is full of supposition. Who told them what happened the night Jaffer was arrested? Not the arresting officer. I don't see any attributed quotes. Who told the Star that Jaffer said he'd get off on the cocaine charges because it was in his coat pocket? Here's the quote from the Star:

" Jaffer told associates that the cocaine was in his jacket pocket, which was hanging in the back seat of his car, which he said meant he would likely get off on a technicality. The police maintain the cocaine was in his pants pocket."

Notice that the associates are unnamed. Nothing in the entire article is attributed. The reporter might as well have made the story up except for the details about the guys Jaffer was dealing with that night. No doubt there is some truth mixed in. But what is truth and what isn't?

The Star has a dubious record on these kinds of things. It is above all a Liberal rag. Just read the the founding papers of the Atkinson Foundation which control the Star through a two tiered share system. The Toronto Star is REQUIRED to support the Liberal Party. This piece of yellow journalism is worse than but not much different from that which had the Liberals in open revolt against IGGY back in January because a TS contributor overheard a couple of people talking with Bob Rae one night in a bar. Consider that before hanging your hat on this particular story. Jaffer is done with the Conservative Party. His wife may soon follow.

DL, again, stop throwing around an accusation like that against Guergis. There's no reason to believe she was involved with or knew about any of this. The Tiger Woods and Sandra Bullock scandals right now demonstrate how spouses can be completely in the dark about things like this.

Eric I'd like to suggest respectfully that those comments by DL ought be deleted because they are libelous. I'd hate to see you get in trouble for someone thing DL wrote. No implied threat, just a concern.

And there is more: Mr. Jaffer was using his wife’s parliamentary email address to conduct some of his private business. (He is married to status of women minister Helena Guergis.)

CTV’s Power Play has emails from Mr. Jaffer on the account – Guergis, Helena - Assistant 2 – and host Tom Clark will be discussing this issue on his show tonight at 5 p.m. ET. Although the emails do not deal with any business involving the Prime Minister or his office, it is clear the former MP had no issue in using his wife’s account.

According to House of Commons rules, every MP’s office is permitted up to four wireless devices. It is not spelled out who can use these devices. It is left up to the discretion of the MP.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.